From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932190AbcAMJGv (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 13 Jan 2016 04:06:51 -0500
Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:46990 "EHLO
	Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932067AbcAMJGr (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 13 Jan 2016 04:06:47 -0500
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:05:49 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: timers: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected
In-Reply-To: <56955C0F.1090005@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1601130930170.3575@nanos>
References: <56955C0F.1090005@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0
X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: -
X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required,  ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Sasha,

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, Sasha Levin wrote:

Cc'ing Paul, Peter

> While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest, running the latest -next
> kernel, I've hit the following lockdep warning:

> [ 3408.474461]  Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
> 
> [ 3408.474461]
> 
> [ 3408.475239]        CPU0                    CPU1
> 
> [ 3408.475809]        ----                    ----
> 
> [ 3408.476380]   lock(&lock->wait_lock);
> 
> [ 3408.476925]                                local_irq_disable();
> 
> [ 3408.477640]                                lock(&(&new_timer->it_lock)->rlock);
>
> [ 3408.478607]                                lock(&lock->wait_lock);

That comes from rcu_read_unlock:

    						rcu_read_unlock()
						 rcu_read_unlock_special()
						 ...
						  rt_mutex_unlock(&rnp->boost_mtx);
   					           raw_spin_lock(&boost_mtx->wait_lock);

> [ 3408.479445]   <Interrupt>
> 
> [ 3408.479796]     lock(&(&new_timer->it_lock)->rlock);

So the task on CPU0 holds rnp->boost_mtx.wait_lock and then the interrupt
deadlocks on the timer->it_lock.

We can fix that particular issue in the posix-timer code by making the
locking symetric:

	rcu_read_lock();
	spin_lock_irq(timer->lock);

...

	spin_unlock_irq(timer->lock);
	rcu_read_unlock();

instead of:

	rcu_read_lock();
	spin_lock_irq(timer->lock);
	rcu_read_unlock();

...

	spin_unlock_irq(timer->lock);

But the question is, whether this is the only offending code path in tree. We
can avoid the hassle by making rtmutex->wait_lock irq safe.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

	tglx